Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson [verfasserIn] Völlering, Jan-Jakob [verfasserIn] De Robertis, Edoardo [verfasserIn] Hinkelbein, Jochen [verfasserIn] Schmitz, Jan [verfasserIn] Warnecke, Tobias [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2024

Schlagwörter:	Endotracheal intubation Systematic review Meta-analysis Helicopter Ground First pass success rate HEMS Time of intubation

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2024

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine - BioMed Central, 2008, 32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:32 ; year:2024 ; number:1 ; day:10 ; month:05

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1

Katalog-ID:	SPR055813836

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	SPR055813836
003	DE-627
005	20240511064715.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	240511s2024 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR055813836
035			\|a (SPR)s13049-024-01213-1-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 610 \|q VZ
100	1		\|a Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0002-2247-5395 \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis
264		1	\|c 2024
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2024
520			\|a Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area.
650		4	\|a Endotracheal intubation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Systematic review \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Meta-analysis \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Helicopter \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Ground \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a First pass success rate \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a HEMS \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Time of intubation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Völlering, Jan-Jakob \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0009-0002-0516-7785 \|4 aut
700	1		\|a De Robertis, Edoardo \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0001-9182-6964 \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Hinkelbein, Jochen \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0003-3585-9459 \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Schmitz, Jan \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0003-0282-097X \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Warnecke, Tobias \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0003-4423-6114 \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine \|d BioMed Central, 2008 \|g 32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai \|w (DE-627)582019125 \|w (DE-600)2455990-8 \|x 1757-7241 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:32 \|g year:2024 \|g number:1 \|g day:10 \|g month:05
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 \|m X:SPRINGER \|x Resolving-System \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a SYSFLAG_0
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 32 \|j 2024 \|e 1 \|b 10 \|c 05

Indexfelder

author_variant	v l j k vlj vljk j j v jjv r e d re red j h jh j s js t w tw
matchkey_str	article:17577241:2024----::fiayfnorcelnuainneiotraivgonaytmt
hierarchy_sort_str	2024
publishDate	2024
allfields	10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 doi (DE-627)SPR055813836 (SPR)s13049-024-01213-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-2247-5395 aut Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area. Endotracheal intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Helicopter (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ground (dpeaa)DE-He213 First pass success rate (dpeaa)DE-He213 HEMS (dpeaa)DE-He213 Time of intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Völlering, Jan-Jakob verfasserin (orcid)0009-0002-0516-7785 aut De Robertis, Edoardo verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-9182-6964 aut Hinkelbein, Jochen verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3585-9459 aut Schmitz, Jan verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-0282-097X aut Warnecke, Tobias verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-4423-6114 aut Enthalten in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine BioMed Central, 2008 32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai (DE-627)582019125 (DE-600)2455990-8 1757-7241 nnns volume:32 year:2024 number:1 day:10 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2024 1 10 05
spelling	10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 doi (DE-627)SPR055813836 (SPR)s13049-024-01213-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-2247-5395 aut Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area. Endotracheal intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Helicopter (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ground (dpeaa)DE-He213 First pass success rate (dpeaa)DE-He213 HEMS (dpeaa)DE-He213 Time of intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Völlering, Jan-Jakob verfasserin (orcid)0009-0002-0516-7785 aut De Robertis, Edoardo verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-9182-6964 aut Hinkelbein, Jochen verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3585-9459 aut Schmitz, Jan verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-0282-097X aut Warnecke, Tobias verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-4423-6114 aut Enthalten in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine BioMed Central, 2008 32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai (DE-627)582019125 (DE-600)2455990-8 1757-7241 nnns volume:32 year:2024 number:1 day:10 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2024 1 10 05
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 doi (DE-627)SPR055813836 (SPR)s13049-024-01213-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-2247-5395 aut Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area. Endotracheal intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Helicopter (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ground (dpeaa)DE-He213 First pass success rate (dpeaa)DE-He213 HEMS (dpeaa)DE-He213 Time of intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Völlering, Jan-Jakob verfasserin (orcid)0009-0002-0516-7785 aut De Robertis, Edoardo verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-9182-6964 aut Hinkelbein, Jochen verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3585-9459 aut Schmitz, Jan verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-0282-097X aut Warnecke, Tobias verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-4423-6114 aut Enthalten in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine BioMed Central, 2008 32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai (DE-627)582019125 (DE-600)2455990-8 1757-7241 nnns volume:32 year:2024 number:1 day:10 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2024 1 10 05
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 doi (DE-627)SPR055813836 (SPR)s13049-024-01213-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-2247-5395 aut Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area. Endotracheal intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Helicopter (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ground (dpeaa)DE-He213 First pass success rate (dpeaa)DE-He213 HEMS (dpeaa)DE-He213 Time of intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Völlering, Jan-Jakob verfasserin (orcid)0009-0002-0516-7785 aut De Robertis, Edoardo verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-9182-6964 aut Hinkelbein, Jochen verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3585-9459 aut Schmitz, Jan verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-0282-097X aut Warnecke, Tobias verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-4423-6114 aut Enthalten in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine BioMed Central, 2008 32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai (DE-627)582019125 (DE-600)2455990-8 1757-7241 nnns volume:32 year:2024 number:1 day:10 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2024 1 10 05
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 doi (DE-627)SPR055813836 (SPR)s13049-024-01213-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-2247-5395 aut Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2024 Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area. Endotracheal intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Helicopter (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ground (dpeaa)DE-He213 First pass success rate (dpeaa)DE-He213 HEMS (dpeaa)DE-He213 Time of intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Völlering, Jan-Jakob verfasserin (orcid)0009-0002-0516-7785 aut De Robertis, Edoardo verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-9182-6964 aut Hinkelbein, Jochen verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-3585-9459 aut Schmitz, Jan verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-0282-097X aut Warnecke, Tobias verfasserin (orcid)0000-0003-4423-6114 aut Enthalten in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine BioMed Central, 2008 32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai (DE-627)582019125 (DE-600)2455990-8 1757-7241 nnns volume:32 year:2024 number:1 day:10 month:05 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 X:SPRINGER Resolving-System kostenfrei Volltext SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2024 1 10 05
language	English
source	Enthalten in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine 32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai volume:32 year:2024 number:1 day:10 month:05
sourceStr	Enthalten in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine 32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai volume:32 year:2024 number:1 day:10 month:05
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Endotracheal intubation Systematic review Meta-analysis Helicopter Ground First pass success rate HEMS Time of intubation
dewey-raw	610
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson @@aut@@ Völlering, Jan-Jakob @@aut@@ De Robertis, Edoardo @@aut@@ Hinkelbein, Jochen @@aut@@ Schmitz, Jan @@aut@@ Warnecke, Tobias @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2024-05-10T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	582019125
dewey-sort	3610
id	SPR055813836
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR055813836</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240511064715.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240511s2024 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR055813836</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13049-024-01213-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-2247-5395</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Endotracheal intubation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Systematic review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meta-analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Helicopter</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ground</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">First pass success rate</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">HEMS</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Time of intubation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Völlering, Jan-Jakob</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0009-0002-0516-7785</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">De Robertis, Edoardo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-9182-6964</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hinkelbein, Jochen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-3585-9459</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schmitz, Jan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-0282-097X</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Warnecke, Tobias</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-4423-6114</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">BioMed Central, 2008</subfield><subfield code="g">32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)582019125</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2455990-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1757-7241</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:32</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:10</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1</subfield><subfield code="m">X:SPRINGER</subfield><subfield code="x">Resolving-System</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">32</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">10</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson
spellingShingle	Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson ddc 610 misc Endotracheal intubation misc Systematic review misc Meta-analysis misc Helicopter misc Ground misc First pass success rate misc HEMS misc Time of intubation Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis
authorStr	Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)582019125
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1757-7241
topic_title	610 VZ Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis Endotracheal intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Systematic review (dpeaa)DE-He213 Meta-analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Helicopter (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ground (dpeaa)DE-He213 First pass success rate (dpeaa)DE-He213 HEMS (dpeaa)DE-He213 Time of intubation (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	ddc 610 misc Endotracheal intubation misc Systematic review misc Meta-analysis misc Helicopter misc Ground misc First pass success rate misc HEMS misc Time of intubation
topic_unstemmed	ddc 610 misc Endotracheal intubation misc Systematic review misc Meta-analysis misc Helicopter misc Ground misc First pass success rate misc HEMS misc Time of intubation
topic_browse	ddc 610 misc Endotracheal intubation misc Systematic review misc Meta-analysis misc Helicopter misc Ground misc First pass success rate misc HEMS misc Time of intubation
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
hierarchy_parent_id	582019125
dewey-tens	610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)582019125 (DE-600)2455990-8
title	Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR055813836 (SPR)s13049-024-01213-1-e
title_full	Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis
author_sort	Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson
journal	Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
journalStr	Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2024
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson Völlering, Jan-Jakob De Robertis, Edoardo Hinkelbein, Jochen Schmitz, Jan Warnecke, Tobias
container_volume	32
class	610 VZ
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1
normlink	(ORCID)0000-0002-2247-5395 (ORCID)0009-0002-0516-7785 (ORCID)0000-0001-9182-6964 (ORCID)0000-0003-3585-9459 (ORCID)0000-0003-0282-097X (ORCID)0000-0003-4423-6114
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(orcid)0000-0002-2247-5395 (orcid)0009-0002-0516-7785 (orcid)0000-0001-9182-6964 (orcid)0000-0003-3585-9459 (orcid)0000-0003-0282-097X (orcid)0000-0003-4423-6114
dewey-full	610
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_auth	Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis
abstract	Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area. © The Author(s) 2024
abstractGer	Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area. © The Author(s) 2024
abstract_unstemmed	Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area. © The Author(s) 2024
collection_details	SYSFLAG_0 GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1
remote_bool	true
author2	Völlering, Jan-Jakob De Robertis, Edoardo Hinkelbein, Jochen Schmitz, Jan Warnecke, Tobias
author2Str	Völlering, Jan-Jakob De Robertis, Edoardo Hinkelbein, Jochen Schmitz, Jan Warnecke, Tobias
ppnlink	582019125
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1
up_date	2024-07-03T18:12:00.531Z
_version_	1803582513383211008
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR055813836</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240511064715.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240511s2024 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR055813836</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13049-024-01213-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kolaparambil Varghese, Lydia Johnson</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-2247-5395</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793). Results A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s). Conclusion Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Endotracheal intubation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Systematic review</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Meta-analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Helicopter</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ground</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">First pass success rate</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">HEMS</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Time of intubation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Völlering, Jan-Jakob</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0009-0002-0516-7785</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">De Robertis, Edoardo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-9182-6964</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hinkelbein, Jochen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-3585-9459</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schmitz, Jan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-0282-097X</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Warnecke, Tobias</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-4423-6114</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">BioMed Central, 2008</subfield><subfield code="g">32(2024), 1 vom: 10. Mai</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)582019125</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2455990-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1757-7241</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:32</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:10</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1</subfield><subfield code="m">X:SPRINGER</subfield><subfield code="x">Resolving-System</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">32</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">10</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.401184

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Efficacy of endotracheal intubation in helicopter cabin vs. ground: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?